Originally Posted by Bageljoey
You are missing his point, srathi
. I suppose it is on purpose, but I will restate it for him in hopes of ending this:
Apple's aged 3GS is still valued by customers such that they are willing to sign up for a pricy long term contracts to get one (or pay hundreds to get one contract free). He wants to know what Android phones of a similar age command the same commercial interest?
The answer is, of course, none.
Android companies follow a traditional phone cycle, which is that a cellphone will only last 9-12 months before it's replaced. You don't see a company keeping around a 2 year old phone because they have 5 current model phones, with the entry level model being more powerful than anything released last year, let alone 2 years ago. There's no point. It's an apple's to oranges comparison.
If Apple offered customers a cheaper way to get iOS than a 3GS, the 3GS wouldn't be around either. It still exists because it's the only way to get an iOS device that's not a top of the line model. Again, apple's to oranges. It's two totally different ways of doing business.
Then you look at the technology involved. 2 years ago, the "Best" android phone was something like the HTC Hero, which had a 400ish MHz processor, a low res screen, and entry level ram/hardly any app space. Last year at this time, the phone to beat would be the upcoming Evo, and it was competing with the Nexus/Droid Incredible. Which had a GHz processor.
By the time the original droid is 2 years old, the average Android device will have 2+ cores clocked at a gig, capable of HD output/recording, significantly faster Data networks ("4G" om every variation), Super high res screens, and who knows what OS.
No, specs arn't everything, but it's clear to see that, for better or worse, the hardware on android devices has evolved in such a way that having a 2 year old phone wouldn't make sense, especially since you can make that same phone cheaper and rebrand it as entry level if you want.